4 comments:

No DSLR has pixels that small. The smallest are 3.8µm on the Micro Four Thirds based Panasonic GH2.

If the rumors of a 1/2.3-inch Pentax with interchangeable lenses turns out to be true, we may see something that can be called an "SLR" with such small pixels. But as a rule SLRs will continue to have pixels much larger than 1.9µm that won't see a major benefit from BSI (actually for 1.75µm and larger the justification for BSI is arguable). The benefits are going to be second-order effects, like increased CRA.

When the (marketing) objective is to to achieve a certain resolution in an ever smaller die size, BSI can make economic sense. However, linearly extrapolating that to cameras that instead have a fixed sensor size (determined by the SLR optics standard) is naive. BSI adds cost per square mm.

If we start to see DSLRs pushing up the resolution to the 100+ megapixel range (let's not even talk about lenses for that at this point), then BSI for improved sensitivity will make sense. But until that point, it will simply add cost to a highly competitive market while providing minimal benefits.

Why would one someone want to build a 135 format sensor with such small pixels (1.75-1.9um)? A sensor like the one in Canon 5D2 (21.4 MP) starts diffracting at f/11. Going by that, this 100MP+ sensor diffracts at f/2 ?!! Imagine building lenses for these cameras.. Do we really need more than 40MP, to achieve what is traditionally considered MF domain, from a 35mm sensor?

As anon @ 5.37 points out, it is just silly to assume one would build big fixed size sensor with such small pixels.

With all due respect gentlemen, where did you read that BSI is destined at DSLR?Revenue WILL go up because soon we'll get a BSI in anything from iPhones to notebooks to P&S cameras.Or do you really think DRSL is *that* big a market in comparison?